戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1  on edge are given in the appendices to this pamphlet.
2 iofeedback or loperamide plus an educational pamphlet.
3 r, and the control group was educated with a pamphlet.
4 on in British, U.S. commercial, and prenatal pamphlets.
5 researcher and alcohol and stress management pamphlets.
6 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus pamphlet (1:1 ratio), using computer-generated randomiza
7 the outer kidney dimensions provided by MIRD pamphlet 19.
8 it by a nurse practitioner, an informational pamphlet, a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week phone number f
9     The usual care group received a standard pamphlet about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and cardiop
10 iven about CF and reproductive options in 28 pamphlets about carrier testing, from commercial and non
11 intervention, consisting of an informational pamphlet and discussion, was associated with earlier pla
12 rdised faecal incontinence patient education pamphlet and were followed for 24 weeks after starting t
13 eived strong physician's advice, a self-help pamphlet, and a list of community resources.
14  biofeedback is equivalent to an educational pamphlet, and that loperamide and biofeedback are equiva
15 liative care order forms, family information pamphlets, and other system supports for providing palli
16 d by public-service videos in waiting areas, pamphlets, and reports in the media.
17       The MIRD Committee objectives for this pamphlet are 3-fold: to restate its schema for assessmen
18                                      Written pamphlets are an important source of information for ind
19 sted biofeedback, and a standard educational pamphlet, but this is likely to result in only negligibl
20                                         This pamphlet describes a new version of MIRDcell, a software
21                                         This pamphlet emphasizes the utility of the MIRD schema for s
22  in the United States and more frequently in pamphlets from noncommercial than in those from commerci
23 tly more patients in the decision aid versus pamphlet group rated information to be excellent for und
24 erials was higher in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups (51% versus 38%; p = 0.006).
25 onflict was lower in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups, 22% versus 44% (p < 0.001).
26 d States compared CARL with an informational pamphlet in reducing fear of dental injections.
27 s concerns about the extent to which any one pamphlet may present balanced information.
28            Abortion was mentioned in just 15 pamphlets, more often in the United Kingdom than in the
29 Compared with the provision of the ACR lupus pamphlet (n = 147), participants randomized to the decis
30                  The recently published MIRD pamphlet no.
31  the radionuclide S values published in MIRD Pamphlet No.
32 e urinary bladder model in the standard MIRD Pamphlet No.
33                       The principles of MIRD Pamphlet No. 14 should be used in planning studies using
34 try was calculated using the methods of MIRD Pamphlet No. 14.
35 e multiregion kidney dosimetry model of MIRD pamphlet no. 19 has been used to calculate absorbed dose
36                                         MIRD Pamphlet no. 23 presented a general overview of methods
37  head and brain originally published in MIRD Pamphlet No. 5 Revised is presented.
38 revision of the head model presented in MIRD Pamphlet No. 5 Revised.
39 makers in the ICU, compared with receiving a pamphlet on cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
40 patient handout and for developing a patient pamphlet on opioids with patients (n = 13).
41 terpreted my article as an anti-experimental pamphlet or as a flat denial of the existence of pro-soc
42 (n = 57) received educational videotapes and pamphlets; pharmacotherapy with the selective serotonin
43                           Furthermore, these pamphlets provide new tools for radionuclide dosimetry a
44                                         This pamphlet reviewed the three primary ventilation procedur
45 2), lecture (SMD = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.28-0.90), pamphlet (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI, -0.11 to 1.05), and audit
46                                     The MIRD pamphlets that follow in this issue and in coming issues
47                             In addition, the pamphlets varied in the amount of information they provi
48 n introduction to an upcoming series of MIRD pamphlets with detailed radionuclide-specific recommenda